Exploring Differential Effects Across Two Decoding Treatments on Item-Level Transfer in Children With Significant Word Reading Difficulties: A New Approach for Testing Intervention Elements
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In English, gains in decoding skill do not map directly onto increases in word reading. However, beyond the Self-Teaching Hypothesis, little is known about the transfer of decoding skills to word reading. In this study, we offer a new approach to testing specific decoding elements on transfer to word reading. To illustrate, we modeled word-reading gains among children with reading disability enrolled in Phonological and Strategy Training (PHAST) or Phonics for Reading (PFR). Conditions differed in sublexical training with PHAST stressing multilevel connections and PFR emphasizing simple grapheme-phoneme correspondences. Thirty-seven children with reading disability, 3rd to 6th grade, were randomly assigned 60 lessons of PHAST or PFR. Crossed random-effects models allowed us to identify specific intervention elements that differentially impacted word-reading performance at posttest, with children in PHAST better able to read words with variant vowel pronunciations. Results suggest that sublexical emphasis influences transfer gains to word reading.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it